When working with a new sponsor I always have five of my buddies sign up through my link.
Its very rare that I get paid for four signups or more. If they give me four or more I am staying with the sponsor.
Its an investement but I think it pays back.

Yes, that's an interesting idea, would work great if the sponsor didn't have honeymoon periods shave free capability / policy.

That's the thing - just like processors have 'extra scrubbing days' there are sponsors that have 'extra smooth shaving' days/weeks/months.

\Em*bez"zle*ment\, n.
The fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom
it has been intrusted; as, the embezzlement by a clerk of his
employer's; embezzlement of public funds by the public
officer having them in charge.

Note: Larceny denotes a taking, by fraud or stealth, from
another's possession; embezzlement denotes an
appropriation, by fraud or stealth, of property already
in the wrongdoer's possession. In England and in most
of the United States embezzlement is made indictable by
statute.


but doesnt seem to apply in this biz

Like oldtimer said, this is basically all void because of the TOS which helps to cover against legal action. So, if you read the TOS it's usually saying they can effectivley 'steal' from you / pay you what they want etc and there's nothing you can do and you're in agreement with that.

Another interesting part is any deception/false advertising type issue.

Not totally true :)

There isn't any reason why any company should shave - many do tho - I will give the reason why below -
First, look at what a site can make from a single join - (And both failed joins and non-comittals) 30% chance of a cross sale - 30% chance of member area upsell, and by constant spamming afterwards - Probably around 3 joins to other programmes -

Problems arise with niche sites - When the programme has a shit members area, and few sites to sell that join on to - (or rather, few sites willing to pay for that join) - This is the area where you see webmasters complaining of being canned for no reason, and programmes blaming them for sending 40 joins all of which cancelled - (If it was for general/amateur traffic, they wouldn't even consider canning).

I'm sure a lot of people would like it to be illegal or atleast illegal without specific notification; before of the possibility, as it occurs and included in any stats available to the affiliate.

If programs are shaving because they can't get their shit correct, they should get out of the business and stop making other people pay for their own incompetencies.

Maybe a 3rd party webmaster resource could be provided by 'shave testing' - 'shave rating' affliliate programs.
:2 cents:

50

Shaving is no more legal than physically stealing.

I agree.......there should be an audit system in place for this industry. Too many people going out of biz these days - and with all the flashy new programs that have come out, I'd say give it another year or so to start seeing some of those going out of business the minute the 'shaving' proof comes out.

Shaving is an urban legend....just like MPA2 has a shaving module.

Thats a very valid point...:thumbsup

Well.. shaving capabilities such as the module for MPA2 may encourage greedy/incompetant program managers to shave, not all do.. unfortunatley of all that use MPA2 we don't know WHO IS shaving.

And this applies to ANY program that is capable of shaving.